Kim Dotcom is offering $5 million to anyone who can help him with his extradition case. …

The German internet mogul and founder of the Internet Party is now offering $5 million to anyone who can prove government corruption over the handling of his case.

“We are asking for information that proves unlawful or corrupt conduct by the US government, the New Zealand government, spy agencies, law enforcement and Hollywood”, Dotcom told website Torrentfreak.com.

Now thinking about this, doesn’t the act of offering $5 million for proof of his pet conspiracy theory, not imply that he currently has – well no proof at all.

The extradition hearing is next month. No doubt he will try and get it delayed until there is a Government he has helped fund in place. But regardless, why offer the bounty at such a late stage?

Related posts:

This entry was posted on Monday, June 9th, 2014 at 1:00 pm and is filed under NZ Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

There might be people willing to make stuff up just to get a hold of money like that. I don’t know how feasible that would be, but if anyone comes forward with access to official information that helps Dotcom in that way, what ever it was would have to be treated as potentially false. We’re getting into dangerous territory here – the sooner Dotcom is extradited, the better.

So he is prepared to pay for evidence favourable to his cause? As Lucia says this could easily result in a manufactured story. Does this not give John Banks grounds for an appeal, especially given the glaring contradictions between his evidence and the evidence of those supporting him.

His assets were and remain frozen. He has to go to Court to get living expenses. Where is this $5mill to come from? The same place as the $3mill for his party?
If it’s his money, then there is a good chance it is the proceeds of crime. Anyone dealing with it is at risk of committing the crime of money-laundering. Politicians are not above the law, any more than whistleblowers.

Dean Papa>Are we to assume then that neither Sir Johnny, or any of his lackeys bother to read the newspapers?

Daily schedule for John Key:

07:00-08:00: Intelligence and security briefing.
08:00-10:00: Pass some laws.
10:00-11:00: Ring Obama or the Queen or someone.
11:00-13:00: Cabinet meeting.
13:00-14:00: Recreational time, also referred to as Question Time.
14:00-20:00: Read papers, make big decisions, try and improve the country.
20:00-21:00: Meal break.
21:00-23:00: Background reading ready for next day.
23:00-24:00: Read gossipy bits of newspaper, making notes about people paying for fireworks or buying big houses. Because years later, not paying attention to that sort of trivia might be the smoking gun that shows you actually HAD heard of a fraud suspect before his arrest.

The Crown from time to time offer rewards, immunity from prosecution in return for information leading to convictions – this could simply be the reverse of that. It could even be the ‘channel’ for introducing such evidence that DC may already be aware of. Alternatively, it could be seen by DC as the opportunity to seek a delay in next month’s hearing on the basis of any contact made. If there is any genuine contact it will of course be from somebody immediately discredited by the DC ‘fans.’ Whatever the situation is, the amount of money is likely to generate some serious interest somewhere, perhaps from an ex insider.

I’ve always been interested in the identities of the other individuals shown to the PM by on the montage of photos when he was briefed in advance of the raid I think it was from memory, the comments made about it later, and whether it was released to DC through the OIA.

Another point is that the supposed count of 8 million (the reward and the donations) might have gone a reasonable distance in an offer to settle with the Hollywood moguls. Maybe a movie is in order from which both parties can profit handsomely. To this point a lot of the ‘facts’ (no offence intended to JB) are bizarre enough for a script along the lines of Austin Powers. As phil might have said ‘what a laff.’

mike tan, yes ‘chump change’ for sure – but that doesn’t account for the anticipated ‘inflation’ of the amounts and charges in order to make a plea bargain possibility. From what I’ve read here and else where, innocent parties have agreed to plea bargains in the States because they can’t afford to find a way out by disproving charges faced – right up to and including capital crimes.. Ensuring that offers were being made and negotiated is probably being run along side DC defence, at least I’d be surprised if it wasn’t. That would potentially give him an opportunity here as well, to be able push that a reasonable offer deal was on the table and that the ‘moguls’ were being unreasonable in response to the point that extradition should be decided in his favour. On the other hand a ‘settlement’ seems to be the modern preference in our Courts at least, it’s likely to be some years (and fishing) before all aspects of this case have reached the Supreme Court.

Dean Papa>So Sir Johnny Key had absolutely no interest in knowing who this multi-millionaire hacker was who had just bought the most expensive house in NZ? How unusually incurious!!!

People you’d expect to be interested in somebody renting a big house: The gossip columnist for the Herald. Metro magazine. Woman’s Day readers. Winston Peters. Interior decorators. The landlord of the big house. Green and Labour MPs who are all hopeless gossips. Dean Papa.

People you wouldn’t expect to be interested in somebody renting a big house: The Prime Minister. Anyone else in the country who actually has a life.

If anyone with an understanding of US law is reading, could they enlighten me as to whether Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) has ever been held to apply to evidence obtained offshore, by a LEA of a foreign government?

If not, then not only has Dotcom got to obtain evidence of corrupt practice, he has to successfully argue that it constitutes fruit of the poisonous tree even though those who collected it were not, and are not, subject to US common law. That seems to me to be an unlikely outcome. The US has a track record of exempting people from legal protections (e.g. terrorists tried on US soil) without much in the way of domestic backlash.

If he’s relying on the tainted fruit doctrine to get him out of trouble, I think he’s in for a shock.

People you wouldn’t expect to be interested in somebody renting a big house: The Prime Minister. Anyone else in the country who actually has a life.

===========================
Even though was plum in the middle of his own electorate, even though he had more money the himself, even though his Ministers and Banks knew who he was. Even though Len and Sky knew who he was. Even though he paid quite publicly for a fireworks display.
Even though many of us who read the daily news knew who he was, even though all the worlds gamers knew who he was.

105A Corrupt use of official information
Every official is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, whether within New Zealand or elsewhere, corruptly uses or discloses any information, acquired by him or her in his or her official capacity, to obtain, directly or indirectly, an advantage or a pecuniary gain for himself or herself or any other person.

105B Use or disclosure of personal information disclosed in breach of section 105A
(1) Every person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who,—

(a) having received personal information (being information that comes into that person’s possession as a result of the commission of an offence against section 105A); and

(b) knowing that the information has been disclosed in contravention of that section,—

uses or discloses that information to obtain, directly or indirectly, an advantage or pecuniary gain for that person or any other person.

(2) It is a defence to a charge under this section if the person charged proves that the person was legally authorised to use or disclose the information.

(3) In this section, the term personal information means any information about an identifiable natural person, including a deceased natural person.